DUI checkpoints are one of the few circumstances
where law enforcement officers are permitted to stop you, even if they have no
reasonable suspicion to do so. Although
this appears to be a serious violation of an individual’s 4th
Amendment Constitutional rights, which protects people from invasion of privacy
by government officials, checkpoints are permitted based on the rationale that
it is considered a minor intrusion on privacy to stop someone quickly and it
serves a substantial public benefit to deter drunk drivers. Thus, officers are permitted to stop you at a
checkpoint for no reason, and they are even supposed to use a “neutral
formula,” or simply an arbitrary number in deciding which cars to pull over.
State and Federal Courts have found that the public
benefit outweighs the inconvenience of the intrusion on someone in a checkpoint
stop. However, the Courts have also
found that in order to balance things out, law enforcement agencies must limit
the intrusiveness by taking various measures to ensure the checkpoint is not
overly burdensome and invasive on innocent people. Thus, certain steps are generally taken in
most checkpoint locations, to ensure that the potential stops are
Constitutional.
In the landmark case on this topic, Ingersoll v. Palmer, the California
Supreme Court analyzed a checkpoint stop that was conducted by the Burlingame
Police Department in 1984. In that checkpoint location, there were substantial
signs that indicated a checkpoint was ahead, and permitted drivers to exit the street prior to the checkpoint.
This was considered by the Court as a major factor that limited the intrusiveness
of the checkpoint stop. The primary purpose of the checkpoint location was to
deter drunk drivers, not to simply catch
drunk drivers. This was emphasized by the Court in their decision, and must
be followed in California State Courts today.
No comments:
Post a Comment